Former Minister of Youth and Sports, Solomon Dalung, has reopened the controversy surrounding the late former Central Bank of Nigeria Deputy Governor, Dr Obadiah Mailafia, asking Nigerians to distinguish between an explosive allegation and facts established by evidence.
Dalung said the controversy surrounding Mailafia’s 2020 claims should not be remembered without examining the more fundamental question of what was eventually established from the allegations.
Mailafia had in August 2020 alleged that a serving governor in northern Nigeria was the commander of Boko Haram.
He claimed that the information came from repentant bandit commanders whom he said he and others had engaged through intelligence networks.
The late economist also alleged that Boko Haram and bandit groups were connected through networks involved in the movement of ammunition, logistics and money.
He further warned that the insecurity could spread from rural communities to urban centres and claimed that prominent Nigerians could become targets.
Mailafia also reportedly predicted that an attempt could be made by 2022 to trigger another civil war.
His comments triggered widespread controversy and attracted the attention of security agencies.
The Department of State Services (DSS) subsequently invited him for questioning, while the National Broadcasting Commission fined Nigeria Info ₦5 million over the broadcast, describing the comments as unverifiable and capable of inciting the public.
But Dalung, in a Facebook post on Thursday, said the passage of time should not cause Nigerians to lose sight of the distinction between what Mailafia alleged and what was actually proven.
He said the former CBN deputy governor never publicly named the governor he accused and did not produce publicly available evidence that established the allegation as fact.
Dalung said the controversy should therefore be examined through the lens of evidence rather than political, ethnic or religious sentiments.
He argued that Nigerians should be able to identify clearly what was alleged, what evidence was presented, what actions authorities took and what conclusions were eventually reached.
The former minister also revisited the controversy over Mailafia’s alleged apology to the DSS.
While the security agency reportedly said Mailafia had apologised, Mailafia disputed the account and maintained that he had neither admitted to inciting Nigerians nor withdrawn his central claims.
For Dalung, that disagreement remains part of the wider lesson from the episode.
He said serious allegations involving terrorism, political violence or public officials should never be accepted merely because they fit a preferred political narrative.
At the same time, he cautioned against dismissing an allegation simply because the person making it is politically inconvenient or unpopular.
Dalung said Mailafia’s death meant that he could no longer provide further explanations or defend his claims, but insisted that the public record of the controversy remained available for scrutiny.
He urged Nigerians to approach similar allegations with greater discipline by separating claims from facts and demanding evidence before reaching conclusions.
According to him, the Mailafia episode should ultimately remind society that extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence.
Dalung said public judgment on issues as serious as terrorism and political violence should therefore be guided by verifiable facts rather than political loyalty, ethnic identity or religious sentiment.
He maintained that the controversy surrounding Mailafia should not be reduced to whether Nigerians agreed or disagreed with him, but should instead prompt a broader conversation about evidence, accountability and the responsibility that comes with making serious public allegations.
The former minister said the enduring question should remain what evidence was produced, what authorities established and what aspects of the allegations remain unproven.
He said that distinction is essential if Nigeria is to avoid allowing politically charged allegations to become accepted as facts without sufficient evidence.
